JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. By means of the present petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :-

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned order dated 19.1.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner Nyayik opposite party no.1 in appeal no.242/2010-11 under section 56 (1) of Indian Stamp Act and order dated 11.6.2010 & order dated10.5.2011 passed by opposite party no.3 A.D.M. (East) Lucknow in case no.7010/589/2003 contained in Annexure NO.1, 2 & 5 to this writ petition."

3. The case set forth by the petitioner is that a registered lease-deed was executed on 18.6.2003 a copy of which is Annexure No.3 to the petition. The said lease-deed was for a period of 30 years. Clause 5 of lease-deed provided that Lessee shall have one option for same period and it will be determined on the basis of the mutual consent of the parties by executing a separate lease-deed after expiry of lease period.

4. Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 contending that less stamp duty had been paid on the said lease-deed and the petitioner was liable to pay additional stamp duty.

5. The petitioner put in appearance before the competent authority and contended that the stamp duty paid by the petitioner was in terms of Schedule I-B-Article 35 (a) (v) of the Act, 1899 which provides that where the lease purports to be for a term exceeding twenty years but not (2) exceeding thirty years then the same duty as a conveyance for a consideration equal six times the amount or value of the average annual rent reserved, shall be payable.

6. The competent authority, vide impugned order dated 11.6.2010 a copy of which is Annexure No.2 to the petition, was of the view that as Clause 5 of the lease-deed also contained a renewal term as such the lease-deed cannot be construed for a period of thirty years rather, would be exceeding the period of thirty years and consequently, the provisions of Schedule-I-B Article 35 (a) (vi) would be applicable that where the lease-deed purports to be for a term exceeding thirty years or in perpetuity then the same duty as the conveyance No.23 clause (a) for a consideration equal to the market value of the property would be payable. On the basis of the same, the petitioner has been required to pay additional stamp duty along with penalty and interest.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed application dated 30.4.2011 for recall of the order dated 11.6.2010 passed in Case No.70 of 2010 (State Vs. Ram Charan Smarak High School) under Stamp Act. The said application has been rejected by the year dated 10.5.2011 a copy of which is Annexure No.5 to the petition.

8. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal against the orders dated 11.6.2010 and 10.5.2011 but the appellate authority concurred with the view of the prescribed authority and dismissed the appeal, vide order dated 19.1.2013 a copy of which is Annexure No.1 to the petition.

9. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when from the lease-deed itself it clearly emerges that the lease-deed was for a period of thirty years but also had a clause for the same period to be determined on the basis of mutual consent of parties but that required executing a separate lease-deed, as such, the lease-deed itself has to be construed for a period of thirty years and not beyond that and thus, the stamp duty as paid on the basis of the Schedule-I-B Article 35 (a) (v) of the Act, 1899, was correctly paid.

10. It is contended that the competent authority has patently erred in law in interpreting clause-5 of the said lease-deed to hold that as Clause-5 of the lease-deed also contains a renewal clause as such, the lease-deed has to be construed as having been executed for a period exceeding thirty years so as to attract the stamp duty payable in terms of Schedule-I-B Article 3